AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 94

post #2791 of 4227
7/10/12 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

It is used to hold microphones other than the calibrated one supplied with the kit. It is awesome that they supply it with the kits because It works perfectly to attach my Behringer ECM8000 holder to the stand. cool.gif

I think that is great. It must be something that was added since I purchased my Pro kit, which was several years ago.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2792 of 4227
7/10/12 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

It is used to hold microphones other than the calibrated one supplied with the kit. It is awesome that they supply it with the kits because It works perfectly to attach my Behringer ECM8000 holder to the stand. cool.gif

Can you upload audyssey calibrated files onto the behringer ECM 8000?
Reply
Reply
post #2793 of 4227
7/10/12 at 9:41pm
I don't understand what you asking. confused.gif

I purchased a calibrated ECM8000 from Cross-Spectrum (I highly suggest buying one from them if you are ever in the need of a calibrated mic) and use it with REW. That along with a good soundcard (such as an M-Audio FastTrack Pro like I have) will allow you measure your room's frequency response with a VERY high level of accuracy. The learning curve for REW is very steep though. It's not for the faint-hearted. wink.gif

I am able to use all of cabling, stand, etc. that came with the Audyssey Pro kit. They obviously expect you too or they wouldn't have provided us all with the adapters! cool.gif

Links to some of the stuff I've mentioned:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FastTrackPro.html

http://www.cross-spectrum.com/measurement/calibrated_behringer.html

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/spl-meters-mics-calibration-sound-cards/15951-cross-spectrum-microphone-calibration-service-usa.html

FYI, if you do end out buying purchasing something from Cross-Spectrum, make sure to mention you are a Home Theater Shack member. You will get a good discount... something like 10+ % off.
Reply
Reply
post #2794 of 4227
7/11/12 at 12:27am
Bonjour Keith,
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Lagavulin is my favourite. Laphroaig next. smile.gif

Bowmore 12 here. smile.gif

Amts,

H.
Reply
Reply
post #2795 of 4227
7/11/12 at 1:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post


Sorry if I was not clear. The Audyssey supplied threaded tip fitting for the boom in the kit, as opposed to the gooseneck for the mike, has only a large - about 3/8inch - male screw on the end of it. The only use I have found for it is to attach an "L" shaped metal bracket to it, known as a corner bracket. That bracket needed to be drilled out to accept the large screw end on the fitting with an appropriately sized nut to hold one side of the corner bracket in place, as the brackets normally have much smaller holes. Having done so, and installed the bracket on the boom, I was able to use a common threaded, short 1/4 inch screw through the other leg of the corner bracket to attach the standard Audyssey mike to the top of the corner bracket. Voila! I was now able to use the Pro tripod with the standard mike, providing a useful tripod with mike boom for use in systems that did not support Pro.
The corner bracket and other bits are all standard hardware store items, and cheap.
Hopefully, that clears it up.
But, if you know of another use for that screw on fitting, I would be delighted to know about it. As I said, it remains a mystery.


Thanks Fitz. Perfectly clear now. I had forgotten that the part was even supplied with the kit, but now you job my memory I do recall it. I just use the gooseneck. For a standard Audyssey mic I would use this thing to attach it to the stand:

 

http://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-Digital-Recorder-Adapter/dp/B001GWCC4I/ref=sr_1_1?s=musical-instruments

 

Does the same job as your corner bracket (I think).

Reply
Reply
post #2796 of 4227
7/11/12 at 1:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Bonjour Keith,
Bowmore 12 here. smile.gif
Amts,
H.


Bonjour Hugo... ça va?

 

I also like Bowmore. In fact, the Islay single malts are my favourites. If you haven’t tried Lagavulin and Laphroaig, I suggest you give them a try.

 

Apologies for OT post - a good single malt Scotch is the perfect finish to a good Audyssey calibration :)

Reply
Reply
post #2797 of 4227
7/11/12 at 2:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

...
I also like Bowmore. In fact, the Islay single malts are my favourites. If you haven’t tried Lagavulin and Laphroaig, I suggest you give them a try.

I'll try both with a toast on your behalf. Merci for the suggestion.

Now IMHO just a small drop of water, enhances the pleasure. I use Evian. Do you also have a suggestion?
Quote:
Apologies for OT post - a good single malt Scotch is the perfect finish to a good Audyssey calibration smile.gif

Same apologies... but as we are sharing experience here, a good company to the endless transferring times during Audyssey Pro MultEQ XT32 calibrations is un petit Camus XO. It eases the pain. smile.gif

Hugo
Reply
Reply
post #2798 of 4227
7/11/12 at 3:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post


I'll try both with a toast on your behalf. Merci for the suggestion.
Now IMHO just a small drop of water, enhances the pleasure. I use Evian. Do you also have a suggestion?

 

I also add a couple of drops of water too - it brings out the full flavour. I use Malvern water but any still (nature) water will be good.

 

 

Quote:
Same apologies... but as we are sharing experience here, a good company to the endless transferring times during Audyssey Pro MultEQ XT32 calibrations is un petit Camus XO. It eases the pain. smile.gif
Hugo

 

Un petit Camus XO - une bonne idée je crois! Merci.

Reply
Reply
post #2799 of 4227
7/11/12 at 4:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Can you upload audyssey calibrated files onto the behringer ECM 8000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I don't understand what you asking. confused.gif

Sorry when you mentioned using Behringer ECM 8000 I assumed you were using the Mic for audyssey. Ignore it redface.gif
Reply
Reply
post #2800 of 4227
7/11/12 at 5:22am

I have received a reply from Chris:

 

Chris Response.JPG

 

The original list that was submitted:

 

Pro Known Issues.JPG

 

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1346723/the-audyssey-pro-installer-kit-thread/2760#post_22204355

Reply
Reply
post #2801 of 4227
7/11/12 at 8:18am
Is future release next release ?

Statistical variations is a quite interesting response to #2. Wonder what goes into the analysis of which xover is better and why?
Joel
Reply
Reply
post #2802 of 4227
7/11/12 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post


Is future release next release ?
Statistical variations is a quite interesting response to #2. Wonder what goes into the analysis of which xover is better and why?
Joel

 

A good question.  There has been quite a bit of discussion and conjecture on that topic.  My theory is that if a crossover appears in the list, it is a viable choice, and that there is likely to be very little differences among the recommended crossovers.  I could be wrong....

Reply
Reply
post #2803 of 4227
7/11/12 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

A good question.  There has been quite a bit of discussion and conjecture on that topic.  My theory is that if a crossover appears in the list, it is a viable choice, and that there is likely to be very little differences among the recommended crossovers.  I could be wrong....

Hi Jerry. Thanks for the effort in sending the queries to Chris and posting his response.

The response to query #2 is indeed quite mind-boggling. This means that the statistical variations in Audyssey Pro come not just from the measurements but even from the calculations. Given 2 sets of exactly the same measurement data, Pro could generate 2 different sets of recommended crossovers. How is this possible? I'm not being cynical but rather just plain curious.

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #2804 of 4227
7/12/12 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

Hi Jerry. Thanks for the effort in sending the queries to Chris and posting his response.
The response to query #2 is indeed quite mind-boggling. This means that the statistical variations in Audyssey Pro come not just from the measurements but even from the calculations. Given 2 sets of exactly the same measurement data, Pro could generate 2 different sets of recommended crossovers. How is this possible? I'm not being cynical but rather just plain curious.
Mark

I am not 100% sure I know exactly what Chris means. I have not seen this myself upon recalculating the filters from the same set of measurements, e.g., comparing MRC off and on. But, I have not done a lot of that. I have done a modest number of recalibrations with new measurements on the same system, and the chosen xovers remain generally consistent, if not at exactly at the same frequencies - only very slight differences - but usually they are consistently the same. If they differ slightly, I have attributed that to small differences in the mike positions. For me, so far, it has not been a big deal, but then, I am a single subwoofer guy. I may be wrong, but these bugs all seem to stem largely from the addition of dual subs to Pro.
Reply
Reply
post #2805 of 4227
7/12/12 at 7:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

I am not 100% sure I know exactly what Chris means. I have not seen this myself upon recalculating the filters from the same set of measurements, e.g., comparing MRC off and on. But, I have not done a lot of that. I have done a modest number of recalibrations with new measurements on the same system, and the chosen xovers remain generally consistent, if not at exactly at the same frequencies - only very slight differences - but usually they are consistently the same. If they differ slightly, I have attributed that to small differences in the mike positions. For me, so far, it has not been a big deal, but then, I am a single subwoofer guy. I may be wrong, but these bugs all seem to stem largely from the addition of dual subs to Pro.

I want to go on record by saying that I don't think any of the issues in the list have significant impact. Issue 1 (can't add measurements to an existing calibration) doesn't come into play very often. I have only seen issue 2 once or twice, and have performed many more re-calculations in which the crossover priorities remained the same. Issue 3 is the most serious, especially if you aren't aware it is happening. But once you know, it is easy to work around.

The clear benefit of this discussion is that we all are aware of the issues, and that Audyssey is aware of our concerns.
Reply
Reply
post #2806 of 4227
7/12/12 at 7:50am
Does anyone feel that it would be a benefit if Audyssey made it easier to change between calibrations?

The way things stand at the moment, if you want to change from one saved calibration to another, you have to "go through the motions" just to achieve what could be very quick and simple process. There is far too much user interaction required, when most of it is unnecessary if we already know what options we want.

We are allowed to save the measurement data, so why not allow us to save the required crossovers and the filters based on those crossovers. With everything already saved on a PC, it would be just a simple process of uploading the data to the AVR or Pre-Pro. This would make changing from one calibration to another far eaiser and much quicker.

I've been in contact with Chris about it (and I can't imagine that I'm the first) but maybe it will take more people to request it before it is seriously considered.
Reply
Reply
post #2807 of 4227
7/12/12 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjf_uk View Post

Does anyone feel that it would be a benefit if Audyssey made it easier to change between calibrations?
The way things stand at the moment, if you want to change from one saved calibration to another, you have to "go through the motions" just to achieve what could be very quick and simple process. There is far too much user interaction required, when most of it is unnecessary if we already know what options we want.
We are allowed to save the measurement data, so why not allow us to save the required crossovers and the filters based on those crossovers. With everything already saved on a PC, it would be just a simple process of uploading the data to the AVR or Pre-Pro. This would make changing from one calibration to another far eaiser and much quicker.
I've been in contact with Chris about it (and I can't imagine that I'm the first) but maybe it will take more people to request it before it is seriously considered.

I have seen this on a number of wish lists, and agree that it would be a most welcome enhancement. Anything that facilitates a quick switch between calibrations would make A/B comparisons easier.
Reply
Reply
post #2808 of 4227
7/12/12 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I have seen this on a number of wish lists, and agree that it would be a most welcome enhancement. Anything that facilitates a quick switch between calibrations would make A/B comparisons easier.
Agreed. It also means that people who would like, or have the need, to change between calibrations would be able to do so. Ideally, it needs to be done by the touch of a button (or a few at the most) rather than having to use a PC or Laptop. I can see some possible issues which could be used as excuses for it not to be done, but I don't really think that there is anything which would make it impossible.
Reply
Reply
post #2809 of 4227
7/12/12 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjf_uk View Post

Agreed. It also means that people who would like, or have the need, to change between calibrations would be able to do so. Ideally, it needs to be done by the touch of a button (or a few at the most) rather than having to use a PC or Laptop. I can see some possible issues which could be used as excuses for it not to be done, but I don't really think that there is anything which would make it impossible.

I believe there would be a dependency on the AVR manufacturers to allocate additional non-volatile storage and/or processing power in the hardware.  Audyssey has stated that this has been an uphill battle.  But we can always hope.

Reply
Reply
post #2810 of 4227
7/12/12 at 9:24am
Saving only the raw measurement data and not anything more "processed" than that might be a way to protect their intellectual property.

Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #2811 of 4227
7/12/12 at 9:55am
For those of you with Omnimic, how have you used it in 5.2 or 7.2 systems to augment Pro?


J
Reply
Reply
post #2812 of 4227
7/12/12 at 10:14am
REW here. Only ever measured decay times with "1.1/2.1" as well as system response (and looked at "splice") with 2.1. I have never measured surrounds.

Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #2813 of 4227
7/12/12 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

REW here. Only ever measured decay times with "1.1/2.1" as well as system response (and looked at "splice") with 2.1. I have never measured surrounds.
Jeff

Same here. I'm not sure how one would send a valid measurement signal to surround speakers. REW test tones are mono. I have used a Y-cable to send the mono signal to both left and right, and then engaged PLII Cinema mode to route the signal to the center channel, which I think is a reasonable test for that speaker. But how to measure surrounds?
Reply
Reply
post #2814 of 4227
7/12/12 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

For those of you with Omnimic, how have you used it in 5.2 or 7.2 systems to augment Pro?
J

I used an OmniMic to improve the sub/speaker integration by getting rid of a dip near the xover. Post Pro cal, I ran the AVR's test tones and changed the sub distances in small intervals to flatten the response. Eliminated a pretty significant dip in a few minutes.

It's also been useful to see what features like DEQ/RLO and Dolby Volume are really doing.

As mentioned above, this may not be exactly what you're asking for (no full 5.2 or 7.2 output), but was very useful in my 5.2 system
Reply
Reply
post #2815 of 4227
7/12/12 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Same here. I'm not sure how one would send a valid measurement signal to surround speakers. REW test tones are mono. I have used a Y-cable to send the mono signal to both left and right, and then engaged PLII Cinema mode to route the signal to the center channel, which I think is a reasonable test for that speaker. But how to measure surrounds?

I keep an mch phono attached to the mch analog bypass inputs with the loose end easily reachable along the side of my 5508. With that, I can inject a signal into any of the 8 inputs. Actually I lied, I only have interconnects attached to LCR and subwoofer mch inputs. If I ever thought of a reason to test the surrounds, I'd use an 8-ch interconnect.

Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #2816 of 4227
7/12/12 at 11:55am
Thanks. So with the pro kit the best use is to fix the xover with distance changes.

Is listed as a protocol in the the FAQ?


J
Reply
Reply
post #2817 of 4227
7/12/12 at 12:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

For those of you with Omnimic, how have you used it in 5.2 or 7.2 systems to augment Pro? J
At the risk of stating the obvious, as has been reported in this thread, the main use of OmniMic (or other such measurement system) to augment Audyssey results (not really specific to Pro) takes two basic forms:
1. Prior to running Audyssey.
Measurements can be done to guide placement of the sub(s) in the room-this can make a remarkable difference in final outcome. Similar procedures irt speaker placement and acoustic room treatments can also be done but IIRC have not been reported on here.
As linked in post #2, see here and here.

2. After running Audyssey.
a. Measurements to basically test/confirm the results of Audyssey.
b. As bfreedma just posted, measurements can be used to guide tweaking distances of speakers/subs in the processor to achieve smoother freq response.
I believe there is a link to a tweak procedure in the Audyssey FAQ.
Reply
Reply
post #2818 of 4227
7/12/12 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Thanks. So with the pro kit the best use is to fix the xover with distance changes.
Is listed as a protocol in the the FAQ?
J


Not in the FAQ because the FAQ doesn’t cover Pro - but it is explained in a document in the Setup Guide post. IME changing the sub distances to improve the bass reponse is a very worthwhile tweak for anyone who has the necessary measuring gear.

Reply
Reply
post #2819 of 4227
7/12/12 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post


I am not 100% sure I know exactly what Chris means. I have not seen this myself upon recalculating the filters from the same set of measurements, e.g., comparing MRC off and on. But, I have not done a lot of that. I have done a modest number of recalibrations with new measurements on the same system, and the chosen xovers remain generally consistent, if not at exactly at the same frequencies - only very slight differences - but usually they are consistently the same. If they differ slightly, I have attributed that to small differences in the mike positions. For me, so far, it has not been a big deal, but then, I am a single subwoofer guy. I may be wrong, but these bugs all seem to stem largely from the addition of dual subs to Pro.

 

I had to re-run Pro this week because I have changed my Height speakers. My M&K SS150 surround speakers have always shown a first choice XO of 100 Hz. When I re-ran Pro to cater for the new Height speakers, the surround XO was reported as 130 Hz first choice. Anyone able to explain that?  I left it at the recommended 130 Hz and the system sounds superb - but why would it suddenly report the surround XO differently when all that has been changed are the Height speakers?

Reply
Reply
post #2820 of 4227
7/12/12 at 12:19pm
With two subs how best does one change distance whilst monitoring the xover region?


J
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)